You explained the issue quite nicely. It's a nice-to-have feature but
on the other hand you're creating a non-well-formed document. Right now
we're in a compromise state with passing null as a power-user feature.
Any push to the other direction hits resistance.
-jh-
Kevin Jones wrote:
>> Why is the default Document constructor protected?
>> I can understand logically that a Document should contain some content
> (and according to the XML specs must contain a root element) but it
> would often make my programming logic more logical if I could create an
> empty document and then add content to it, rather than creating content
> first and constructing the document with that content.
>> I can create an empty document (in at least two ways I think)
>> e.g.
> new Document((org.jdom.Element)null);
>> where the cast could also be to java.util.List.
>> or
>> elem = new Element("foo");
> doc = new Dcoument(elem);
> elem.detach();
>> And this is sometimes necessary (especially the second case), so 'naked'
> Documents are possible. This would seem a nice-to-have feature,
>> Kevin Jones
> Developmentor
> www.develop.com
>> _______________________________________________
> To control your jdom-interest membership:
>http://lists.denveronline.net/mailman/options/jdom-interest/youraddr@yourhost.com